I would think the average person (and I'm thinking about people that have probably never read a comic book, but have seen the Batman tv show, or maybe one of the Burton films) would be familiar with Joker, Penguin, Riddler, Catwoman and probably Mr.Freeze. Most of my friends didnt' even know who Two face was, let alone Bane.

Eh, there was never really the fear there with Ra's that "this guy could actually beat the crap out of Batman". As the guy who trained Bruce, he was naturally a worthy opponent for him, but you never had that visceral sense of brutality, nor was it called for in the story.

I guess we saw two different movies, because I saw Bruce get his butt kicked twice by Ra's. He may not have the brutality of Bane, but he was a physical threat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Exactly. Ra's also used swords as well. Weapons. As for Joker, he was a dirty fighter. Using dogs, and nets, and metal bars to pummel Batman while he was down.

It doesn't matter what you use, if you can't defend yourself against it, your opponent is a physical threat to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

And the physical threat is used because Bane is someone that ended up breaking Batman, period. While Ra's al Ghul and Joker used weapons in fighting Batman, they still had never been able to 'Break the Bat' as Bane did.

Bane, Ra's and Joker have different styles, but they all ended up kicking Batman's butt. I don't agree that you actually have to "break" someone to be a "physical threat". The Joker stabbed him, which could've killed Batman. In my opinion, that person is a "physical threat" to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmc

We say it because it's true.

It depends on what your definition of it is. In all 3 movies, Batman got handled, something I didn't like. But when people say that he hasn't had a "physical threat", that isn't accurate.

I understand where you guys are coming from in terms of "looks" or what you know about the villans, but to dismiss Ra's Al Ghul as a "physical threat" is pretty ridiculous. But I guess it's been a pet peeve of mine that people are throwing around the term "physical threat" a little loosely. If Batman easily won every fight until Bane, I'd agree. But he didn't.

It depends on what your definition of it is. In all 3 movies, Batman got handled, something I didn't like. But when people say that he hasn't had a ''physical threat'', that isn't accurate.

I understand where you guys are coming from in terms of ''looks'' or what you know about the villans, but to dismiss Ra's Al Ghul as a ''physical threat'' is pretty ridiculous. But I guess it's been a pet peeve of mine that people are throwing around the term ''physical threat'' a little loosely. If Batman easily won every fight until Bane, I'd agree. But he didn't.

It's not a loose term at all, the facts of film one and two were Batman was never physically beaten. There's no denying that, he was challenged by Ra's and maybe Ra's could have beaten him but he didn't, The Joker challenged him psychologically but was never in any dangers of getting beaten in a fight with him, at no point throughout films one and two was Batman in any real personal danger from any of those characters physically. You can't base it all on assumptions that characters 'may' have beaten him, the truth is they simply didn't. So in that sense Bane actually was the physical threat Batman never encountered. Dismissing Ra's is not ridiculous, it's the truth, Bruce became his superior. With Bane the odds were always even, probably even leaning toward the villain.

__________________
Celebrating 75 years of Batman saving Gotham City.

Fanboys make excuses, real fans acknowledge screw-ups.

Do me a favour - don't break up my posts into multiple quotes when replying, I won't answer back.

Then by that logic just about every villain in Batman's rogues gallery has been a physical threat to him at some time or another.

Do you really think that when anyone thinks which villain is a physical challenge for Batman they think of the likes of Penguin, Joker and Riddler?

Thank you! There has to be some back and forth with the big showdowns in the finale of the films. Batman practically ran through everyone in TDK, and had already beaten Joker down in the interrogation room, not to mention defeating him and his goons at the penthouse with relative ease. Joker getting the upper-hand during the prewitt building scene was fine. It added to the drama of "will the people blow each other up?" on the ferries.

It's not a loose term at all, the facts of film one and two were Batman was never physically beaten. There's no denying that, he was challenged by Ra's and maybe Ra's could have beaten him but he didn't,

He beat him in Wayne Manor. He didn't physically beat him down like Bane, but he didn't need to nor could he because of the fire. Bruce would've died if it weren't for Alfred.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmc

The Joker challenged him psychologically but was never in any dangers of getting beaten in a fight with him, at no point throughout films one and two was Batman in any real personal danger from any of those characters physically.

He was stabbed by the Joker and could've died. I get he won't beat Batman in a fist fight, but his life was in danger from his encounter with the Joker. This is where I'm coming from. This is my whole argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Then by that logic just about every villain in Batman's rogues gallery has been a physical threat to him at some time or another.

The pics say it all. Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Do you really think that when anyone thinks which villain is a physical challenge for Batman they think of the likes of Penguin, Joker and Riddler?

No, that's not my point. When people say a "physical threat", I cringe. I think a better term would be "physically imposing". But that's just me. And yes, Bane was that but Ra's, Joker, Zsasz and scarecrow weren't. If that term was used, I wouldn't be complaining about it.

I'll give you guys the last word if you'd like and I'll give it a rest.

He beat him in Wayne Manor. He didn't physically beat him down like Bane, but he didn't need to nor could he because of the fire. Bruce would've died if it weren't for Alfred.
He was stabbed by the Joker and could've died. I get he won't beat Batman in a fist fight, but his life was in danger from his encounter with the Joker. This is where I'm coming from. This is my whole argument.

Could've, should've, would've, if my uncle had breasts he'd be my aunty. Your whole argument is based on things that 'might' have happened. The whole point is none of them physically beat him to a bloody pulp did they? So, yes, Bruce lacked a physical threat whether you want to acknowledge it or not because not once throughout the series until Rises has he come across someone who in many ways was superior to him.

__________________
Celebrating 75 years of Batman saving Gotham City.

Fanboys make excuses, real fans acknowledge screw-ups.

Do me a favour - don't break up my posts into multiple quotes when replying, I won't answer back.

Bane is mainly known for breaking the bat in the comic books and now because of Nolan thats what he is known for in the movie universe now. Is that good enough for the character on film?

I guess the issue is he's kind of a one trick pony then if that's all he's known for. I think the revolutionary/dictator qualities Nolan brought in is a good starting point, but the character really needs to evolve a lot more in the comic and animation if he's to be given another shot on film later down the line. Do we really need another Bane movie with him breaking Batman? I can't think of any other major villain in the gallery that's only really known for one major story line and that really does need to change if DC want to capitalize on the characters new found level of fame.

__________________
Celebrating 75 years of Batman saving Gotham City.

Fanboys make excuses, real fans acknowledge screw-ups.

Do me a favour - don't break up my posts into multiple quotes when replying, I won't answer back.

Definitely TDKR's. Looks far more intimidating than the Luchador mask. Since the comics don't have their characters wearing something bad ass looking for a specific reason like Nolan does, they can have Bane get a new mask without making it a simple pain killing gas device.

what is the difference from bane's mask from Spiderman's mask or Spawn's mask?

I like the simple "Vengance of Bane" look. K.I.S.S.

every cartoon and video game creators try to add something to Bane, and make him look stupid.

Nolan's Bane is ok.

I guess Spiderman looks like luchador since he originaly started as a wrestler.

Comic Bane is one of the crappiest villains Batman had. From every possible angle. Just complete inept. That they were able to create such a phenomenal one , based on that is just a fantastic testament to everyone involved in the movies.

if that was true then Nolan would of never used Bane. Bane was the most underrated Villiains of Batman way before the Dark Knigh Rises.

I would want to see them take Tommy Bane's revolutionary disposition as a driving motivation whenever they run the current creative direction of Bane to the ground of staleness. I wouldn't want them to adapt his mask as I have a hunch it's texture is better served in the three dimensions of live action rather then the two dimensions of a comic book, where simpler lines work better as a design philosophy.